X-2HIBI-3T Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE JANE DOE and JANE DOE Petitioners vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent I ORDER DENYING Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of On December two other unnamed victims Jane Doe and Jane Doe moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure DE Petitioners Jane Doe I and Jane Doe support the Rule Motion Id at Jane Doe and Jane Doe argue that they have suffered the same violations of their rights under the CVRA as the Petitioners and they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well Id at I The Government vehemently opposes joinder under Rule DE The Government argues that Rule is the proper procedural device for adding parties to an action not Rule Id at I Out of an abundance of caution Petitioners filed a motion to amend their petition under Rule conforming the petition to the evidence and adding Jane Doe and Jane Doe as petitioners DE at The Government opposes the Rule Motion as well DE Among other things the Government argues that amending the petition to include Jane Doe and Jane Doe should be denied because of their undue delay in seeking to join the proceedings and the undue prejudice that amendment will cause Id After considering the parties submissions and the proposed amended petition the Court finds that justice does not require amendment in this instance and exercises its discretion to deny the amendment II Discussion The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of the district court Laurie Ala Ct Crim Apps F.3d 11th Cir The court should freely give leave when justice so requires Fed Civ a Justice does not require amendment in several instances including undue delay bad faith dilatory motive GIUFFRE002845 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of on the part of the movant undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment and futility of amendment Laurie F.3d at quoting Foman Davis U.S In addition to considering the effect of amendment on the parties the court must consider the importance of the amendment on the proper determination of the merits of a dispute Wright Miller Fed Prac Fed 3d ed Justice does not require amendment where the addition of parties with duplicative claims will not materially advance the resolution of the litigation on the merits See Herring Delta Air Lines Inc 2d I I 9th Cir A Rule Motion Jane Doe and Jane Doe first attempt to join in this proceeding was brought under Rule DE If parties seek to add a party under Rule courts generally use the standard of Rule governing amendments to pleadings to determine whether to allow the addition Wright Miller Fed Prac Fed 3d ed see also Galustian Peter F.3d 4th Cir collecting cases and noting that Rule a applies to amendments seeking to add parties Frank U.S West Inc F.3d 10th Cir A motion to add a party is governed by Fed Civ a Rule Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties provides the court with a tool for correcting the misjoinder of parties that would otherwise result in dismissal Fed Civ Insofar as Rule relates to the addition of parties it is intended to permit the bringing in of a person who through inadvertence mistake or for some other reason had not been made a party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable United States Com Bank ofN Am F.R.D S.D.N.Y internal quotation marks omitted GIUFFRE002846 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of In their Rule Motion Jane Doe and Jane Doe do not claim that they were omitted from this proceeding due to any inadvertence or mistake by Petitioners rather they seek to join this proceeding as parties that could have been permissively joined in the original petition under Rule Permissive Joinder of Parties As courts generally use the standards of Rule to evaluate such circumstances the Court will consider the joinder issue as presented in the Rule Motion The Court will consider the arguments presented in the Rule Motion as if they are set forth in the Rule Motion as well Because the arguments are presented in the Rule Motion and because the Court is denying the Rule Motion on its merits as discussed below the Rule Motion will be denied The Court also concludes that portions of the Rule Motion and related filings should be stricken from the record Pending for this Courts consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan Dershowitz who seeks to intervene to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and to request a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them DE at The Court has considered Mr Dershowitzs arguments but it finds that his intervention is unnecessary as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure empowers the Court on its own to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant immaterial impertinent or scandalous matter Fed Civ Petitioners Rule Motion consists of relatively little argumentation regarding why the Court should permit them to join in this action they argue that they were sexually abused by The Court notes that regardless of which motion it considers the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule and Rule See Goston Potter No FJS ATB WL at N.D.N.Y citing Bridgeport Music Inc Universal Music Grp Inc F.R.D S.D.N.Y GIUFFRE00284 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jeffrey Epstein and the Government violated their CVRA rights by concealing the non prosecution agreement with them DE at see id at However the bulk of the Rule Motion consists of copious factual details that Jane Doe and Jane Doe would prove if allowed to join this action Id at Specifically Jane Doe proffers that she could prove the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr Epstein and how Mr Epstein sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals including numerous prominent American politicians powerful business executives foreign presidents a well-known Prime Minister and other world leaders Id at She names several individuals and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place See id at At this juncture in the proceedings these lurid details are unnecessary to the determination of whether Jane Doe and Jane Doe should be permitted to join Petitioners claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to this central claim i.e that they were known victims of Mr Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties especially considering that these details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government These unnecessary details shall be stricken The original Rule Motion DE shall be stricken in its entirety as it is wholly superseded by the corrected version of the Rule Motion DE From the corrected Rule Motion the Court shall strike all factual details regarding Jane Doe between the following sentences The Government then concealed from Jane Doe the existence of its NP A from Jane Doe 4s proffer is limited to sexual acts between Mr Epstein and herself See DE at GIUFFRE002848 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe in violation of her rights under the CVRA id at and The Government was well aware of Jane Doe when it was negotiating the NP A as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA id at As none of Jane Doe 4s factual details relate to non-parties the Court finds it unnecessary to strike the portion of the Rule Motion related to her circumstances Regarding the Declaration in support of Petitioners response to Mr Dershowitzs motion to intervene DE the Court shall strike paragraphs through and as they contain impertinent details regarding non-parties Regarding the Declaration of Jane Doe in support of the Rule Motion DE the Court shall strike paragraphs through and as they contain impertinent details regarding non parties Jane Doe is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof should Petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Courts consideration As mentioned Mr Dershowitz moves to intervene for the limited purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them DE at As the Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule Motion and related filings the Court concludes that Mr Derschowitzs intervention in this case is unnecessary Accordingly his motion to intervene will be denied as moot Regarding whether a show cause order should This also moots Mr Dershowitzs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in Support of Motion for Limited Intervention DE Denying Mr Dershowitz motion to intervene also renders moot Petitioners motion DE to file a sealed document supporting its response to Mr Dershowitzs motion It will accordingly be denied as moot and DE the sealed response will be stricken from the record GIUFFRE002849 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of issue the Court finds that its action of striking the lurid details from Petitioners submissions is sanction enough However the Court cautions that all counsel are subject to Rule mandate that all submissions be presented for a proper purpose and factual contentions have evidentiary support Fed Civ and and that the Court may on its own strike from any pleading any redundant immaterial impertinent or scandalous matter Fed Civ Rule Motion Between their two motions the Rule Motion and Rule Motion Jane Doe and Jane Doe assert that they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights under the CVRA as well DE at Although Petitioners already seek the invalidation of Mr Epsteins non-prosecution agreement on behalf of all other similarly-situated victims DE at DE at Jane Doe and Jane Doe argue that they should be fellow travelers in this pursuit lest they be forced to file a separate suit raising their claims resulting in duplicative litigation DE at The Court finds that justice does not require adding new parties this late in the proceedings who will raise claims that are admittedly duplicative of the claims already presented by Petitioners The Does submissions demonstrate that it is entirely unnecessary for Jane Doe and Jane Doe to proceed as parties in this action rather than as fact witnesses available to offer relevant admissible and non-cumulative testimony See e.g DE at Jane Doe and Jane Doe are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims The new victims will establish at trial that the Government violated their CVRA rights in the same way as it violated the rights of the other victims Jane Doe and Jane Doe will simply join in motions that the current victims were going to file in any event litigating Jane Doe and GIUFFRE002850 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe 4s claims would be duplicative DE at As promised Jane Doe No and Jane Doe No do not seek to expand the number of pleadings filed in this case If allowed to join this action they would simply support the pleadings already being filed by Jane Doe No and Jane Doe No DE at A four victims represented by the same legal counsel intend to coordinate efforts and avoid duplicative pleadings Jane Doe and Jane Doe challenge the same secret agreement i.e the NPA that the Government executed with Epstein and then concealed from the victims This is made clear by the proposed amendment itself in which all four victims simply allege the same general facts As the Does argue at length in their Rule Motion Jane Doe original petition specifically allege that the Government was violating not only her rights but the rights of other similarly-situated victims DE at The Court fails to see why the addition of other similarly-situated victims is now necessary to vindicate their rights as well DE at Of course Jane Doe and Jane Doe can participate in this litigated effort to vindicate the rights of similarly situated victims there is no requirement that the evidentiary proof submitted in this case come only from the named parties Petitioners point out as much noting that regardless of whether this Court grants the Rule Motion they will call Jane Doe No as a witness at any trial DE at The necessary participation of Jane Doe and Jane Doe in this case can be satisfied by offering their properly supported and relevant admissible and non-cumulative testimony as needed whether through testimony at trial see DE at or affidavits submitted to support the relevancy of discovery requests see The non-party Jane Does clearly understand how to submit affidavits See DEs GIUFFRE00285 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of id at Petitioners do not contend that Jane Doe and Jane Doe 4s participation in this case can only be achieved by listing them as parties As it stands under the original petition the merits of this case will be decided based on a determination of whether the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe Jane Doe and all other similarly situated victims under the CVRA Jane Doe and Jane Doe may offer relevant admissible and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination but their participation as listed parties is not necessary in that regard See Herring 2d at District court did not abuse its discretion by denying amendment where addition of more plaintiffs would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment cf Arthur Stem WL at S.D Tex Under Rule courts have held that leave to amend to assert a claim already at issue in another lawsuit should not be granted if the same parties are involved the same substantive claim is raised and the same relief is sought And as to Jane Doe at least adding her as a party raises unnecessary questions about whether she is a proper party to this action Petitioners also admit that amending the petition to conform to the evidence by including references to the non-prosecution agreement itself is unnecessary as the existing petition is broad enough to cover the developing evidence in this case DE The Court The Court expresses no opinion at this time whether any of the attestations made by Jane Doe and Jane Doe in support of their motion will be relevant admissible and non cumulative The Government contends that Jane Doe is not a true victim in this case because she was not known at the time the Government negotiated the non-prosecution agreement and accordingly she was not entitled to notification rights under the CVRA See DE at Any duplicative litigation filed by Jane Doe would necessarily raise the issue of whether she has standing under the CVRA under these circumstances GIUFFRE002852 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of agrees and it concludes that justice does not require amending the petition this late in the proceedings I Conclusion Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows the Rule Motion DE is DENIED the Rule Motion DE is DENIED Intervenor Dershowitzs Motion for Limited Intervention DE and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in Support of Motion for Limited Intervention DE are DENIED AS MOOT Petitioners Motion to Seal DE is DENIED AS MOOT the following materials are hereby STRICKEN from the record DE in its entirety DE all sentences between the following sentences The Government then concealed from Jane Doe the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe in violation of her rights under the CVRA DE at and The Government was well aware of Jane Doe when it was negotiating the NP A as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NP A DE at DE paragraphs through and DE paragraphs through and DE in its entirety DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach Palm Beach County Florida this th day of April
16,271 characters
